Should Federal Workers Accept Trump’s Buyout Offer? 

Historically, the rewards of being a federal employee, including the mission of public service and the value of employment stability, have come at the cost of modest monetary compensation. However, the Trump Administration’s new “deferred resignation offer” promises money to those who leave their jobs without any promises to those who stay. Federal workers to which it applies have until today to decide: Is the package worth it?

President Donald Trump’s political opponents warn that the president will not pay up, a reasonable concern considering that he does not pay many of his bills in his business and personal life. Unions decry the plan as a scare tactic, and some employee representatives question its legality.

The scale and suddenness of this offer is unprecedented in the federal government but typical of slash-and-burn management practices espoused by Trump and his efficiency czar, Elon Musk. The offer is presented in their preferred language, as a monetary transaction: eight months of paid leave and benefits in exchange for resignation. Because they are personally motivated by material considerations, they presume that everyone must be “rational economic actors,” as rational choice theory refers to people who only care about their own self-interest.

If a federal worker did indeed trust the integrity of the offer, rational economic actors who are not already on the verge of full retirement will weigh only material considerations in their decision. They will consider the value of their remaining take-home wages through September that pays them for looking for their next job. They will consider the probability of finding private sector employment at similar or better pay before their free ride runs out. They will compare the relative job security of their public and private sector prospects in the foreseeable future. Finally, they will consider the retirement timelines and packages in each scenario. People with this worldview see only one dimension of worth: the net worth conferred by money.

But if there are enough rational economic actors in the federal workforce who accept the offer to resign, it could have sweeping unintended consequences for all of us. One is the possibility that necessary services could be disrupted, from air traffic control to tax refunds. A potentially ironic consequence of this “government efficiency” operation could be inefficiency brought on by the chaos a large exodus could cause. The plan could reduce job prospects for unemployed private sector workers who are struggling to stay afloat in an expanded employment pool. In the longer term, Trump’s ploy to improve the federal workforce could adversely affect productivity if workers who are least qualified to find alternative employment are most likely to stay behind in search of employment stability.

However, early resistance to the offer suggests an even more important factor that may foil the attempt of corporate raiders to remake the government in their image. Many of the most talented and devoted federal employees went into public service for the mission, not the money. They care about other forms of worth beyond their net worth: the intangible value of love of country that cannot be counted in dollars and the sense of self-worth conferred by a job well done.

For this reason, many federal workers may choose to stay in their positions not because they have no choice but because they choose to continue serving their country under any administration, even one that disrespects and tries to dismantle them.

Dedicated federal workers may even double down in their roles to defend their work for their country and provide necessary continuity between the previous and the present to the next presidential administration. Unlike their new bosses, they believed in the oath they took, that public service is a public trust. They did not go into public service with the logic that Trump and Musk are banking on: to get paid the most to do the least.